United States v. Sharpe
470 U.S. 675 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In determining the reasonableness of the duration of an investigative stop, courts must consider whether police diligently pursued an investigation likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly, and whether the suspect's own actions contributed to the delay. There is no rigid per se time limit for such detentions; rather, the standard is one of reasonableness based on the totality of the circumstances.
Facts:
- DEA Agent Cooke observed a pickup truck with a camper shell, driven by Savage, and a Pontiac, driven by Sharpe, traveling in tandem on a coastal highway in an area known for drug trafficking.
- Cooke noted the truck appeared heavily loaded because it rode low in the rear and its camper windows were covered with a quilted material.
- After following the vehicles for approximately 20 miles, Cooke decided to conduct an investigative stop and requested assistance from State Highway Patrol Officer Thrasher.
- As Thrasher signaled the lead car, Sharpe's Pontiac, to pull over, Savage's pickup truck cut between the Pontiac and the patrol car and continued down the highway.
- Thrasher pursued and stopped Savage's truck about a half-mile away, while Agent Cooke remained with Sharpe.
- Cooke was unable to contact Thrasher for several minutes and had to wait for local police to arrive and secure the scene with Sharpe before he could leave to join Thrasher.
- Approximately 15 minutes after Savage's truck was stopped, Cooke arrived, detected the odor of marihuana coming from the camper, and developed probable cause for an arrest.
- The total time from when Savage was initially stopped until Cooke developed probable cause by smelling the marihuana was approximately 20 minutes.
Procedural Posture:
- Sharpe and Savage were charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina.
- The defendants filed a motion to suppress the evidence, which the District Court denied.
- Following a trial, Sharpe and Savage were convicted.
- The defendants appealed their convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
- A divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed the convictions, holding that the prolonged detentions constituted de facto arrests without probable cause.
- The government's petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court was granted, and the case was vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of an intervening decision.
- On remand, the Court of Appeals reinstated its prior judgment, again reversing the convictions.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted the government's second petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a 20-minute investigative detention of a suspect violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizures when the police act diligently to pursue their investigation and the suspect's own evasive actions contribute to the delay?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Burger
No, a 20-minute detention under these circumstances does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The reasonableness of an investigative stop's duration depends not on a rigid time limit, but on whether police diligently pursued a means of investigation likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly. In evaluating the detention, courts must consider the law enforcement purposes served and the time reasonably needed to effectuate them. Here, the delay was primarily caused by Savage's evasive action of separating from the other vehicle, which forced the officers to split up. Agent Cooke acted diligently by securing the first scene before joining the second and then proceeding expeditiously with his investigation once he arrived. Therefore, the 20-minute detention was reasonable and justified under the circumstances.
Concurring - Justice Marshall
No, the detention did not violate the Fourth Amendment, but only because the defendant's own actions caused the delay. The Fourth Amendment imposes a strict, independent brevity requirement on Terry stops; a stop can become unconstitutionally intrusive based on its length alone, regardless of police diligence. However, that requirement can be relaxed when, as here, the suspect's evasive maneuvers are the primary cause for prolonging the encounter beyond what would normally be a permissibly brief period. The majority's reasoning dangerously understates the importance of this brevity requirement by blending it into a general reasonableness test, which could corrode the principles upon which Terry is grounded.
Concurring - Justice Blackmun
No. While he would have vacated the judgment and directed the appeal to be dismissed due to the respondents' fugitive status, he joins the Court's opinion on the merits since the majority chose to decide the case.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
Yes, the lengthy detentions violated the Fourth Amendment. The detentions were transformed into de facto arrests without probable cause. The Court errs by making a de novo factual finding that Savage engaged in 'evasive actions,' as the record is ambiguous. The government failed to show that the police used the least intrusive means reasonably available; the officers could have coordinated the stop better, and Officer Thrasher was fully capable of conducting the investigation himself. The delay resulted from bungled communications and poor police coordination, not the suspect's actions, and therefore the extended detention was an unreasonable seizure.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
The Court should not have reached the merits of the case. Because both respondents are fugitives, the Court should have vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded with directions to dismiss the appeal. Deciding the constitutional question is unnecessary and inconsistent with the principle of judicial restraint, as the Court cannot enforce its judgment against parties who have fled its jurisdiction.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the rejection of a 'bright-line' temporal rule for investigative stops under Terry v. Ohio, replacing it with a more flexible, fact-specific reasonableness inquiry. By emphasizing police diligence and the suspect's own conduct, the Court grants law enforcement greater latitude in situations where investigations are complicated by external factors. This approach, however, reduces predictability for both police and citizens and requires lower courts to engage in a more nuanced, case-by-case analysis of whether a stop's duration was justified, rather than applying a simple durational cutoff.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Sharpe